A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

At around 03:00 on August 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) requested F to return home from the police officer of the Seoul Songpa Police Station Ecom Station to the police officer who was in his possession, who was in receipt of a request from F to refrain from engaging in any disturbance, such as taking time expenses, and sending the disturbance to the customers after being 112 reported; and (b) requested F to refrain from committing any disturbance; and (c) requested F to return home from the police officer of the Seoul Songpa Police Station Ecom Station; (d) he was in receipt of a notice from F that he could be arrested as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties; and (e) he was able to take care of the paper document taken out from the bank he was in his possession; and (e) he was able to take care of F face with the above document; and (e) interfere with the legitimate performance of public duties by the police officer for handling reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. To apply existing Acts and subordinate statutes of the notice of arrest or detention;

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the grounds for sentencing choice of imprisonment, and the reasons for sentencing;

1. Scope of recommendations on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months and up to April 1, the basic area of the obstruction of performance of official duties (performance of official duties) (up to six months to one year and four months) - No special person: No person shall be punished;

2. The fact that the Defendant’s decision on the sentence did not focus on the degree of assault committed against the police officer, that recognized all the crimes in this Court, and that there was no criminal record beyond the suspended sentence, is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant has been punished twice for obstruction of performance of official duties and four times for other violent crimes.

Since the defendant had been sentenced two times or more to the obstruction of performance of official duties, and even if he/she repeats the same crime and assaults the police officer, he/she is exempted from the fine, it is judged that there is a high possibility that the defendant will repeat the same crime if he/she takes the action again.

Furthermore, the defendant interferes with violence and duties at convenience stores.